LIBERTY OR DEATH - axiomtek's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Gay Marriage & Prop 8 - My position & why both sides are wrong.

Thu, 28 May 2009 16:51:13 PDT

As a person who lives in California I hear a lot of discussion of prop 8. Prop 8 was a ballot proposition that attempted to add the definition of marriage as a man and women in the state constitution. I personally voted no on prop 8 but did so for very different reasons than most people. I wanted to give a brief description of my position and why I think both sides are in many ways wrong.

People ask if I’m in favor of “gay marriage” – I’m not.
People ask if I’m in favor of “straight/traditional” marriage – I’m not.

I’m against the state.

In other words, I’m against the government being involved with marriage as an institution. I don’t believe it’s the role of the government to get involved in regulating what should be a private social institution.

This may seem like an odd position but all of us feel this way about other social or traditional rituals/institutions. Here is a list of things that many of us would be against the state being involved in, and this is what it would look like if they were involved in them.

Friendship licenses
A baptism license/permit
Birthday party permit
Sex contract/license

Imagine if the state were to require its people get a “baptism” license before they baptize their child. Certainly you can argue for the “sanctity” of baptism, the very definition of sanctity is holiness, saintliness, or godliness – which is the very reason we should oppose the state being involved. Is the purpose of the state to give us phony and meaningless documents “allowing” us to engage in activities like marriage or baptism? Is the idea of getting “permission” from a government to go fishing or have a birthday party consistent with a free society, or is it more consistent with a totalitarian one?

The proper function of the state I think most would agree is to protect our liberties, provide courts to handle disputes, and other basic functions – not to define and regulate rituals or traditions.

Now many will point out that the logic behind a marriage “license” is also a legal one. Many will point out that being married is a contract between two people that addresses issues like property inheritance, hospital visits, and other issues.

Of course these are all benefits that still could exist under secular civil unions. As of now you can get a civil union with anyone to resolve issues like this – even two roommates who were just friends could get a civil union. Marriage would still exist if we were to abolish state sponsored marriage, in the same way baptisms & birthday parties exist without the state. The difference would be a couple would get married in a church or whatever they wanted, it would be equally meaningful and “holy” in their eyes, but if they also wanted to resolve the legal issues they could get a civil union.

This may be an odd analogy but consider the way it is with driver’s license. As of now you can buy whatever vehicle you want – you can buy a motorcycle, a pink van, a tiny blue car whatever you like. The choice of color, type, size and location of purchase is something you decide. Of course if you want to use the state sponsored roads you must get a drivers license and registration. The registration process is secular and has nothing to do with the type or color of your car; it just is there to say “Hey California, I’m going to be driving around all right?”

The state is there to provide the legal stuff; you pick the car you want. Under our current system of marriage, it would be analogous to the state defining what color car you can drive and letting the people vote on “Prop 64 – to define a vehicle as a yellow Honda civic” – It’s a bazaar analogy but it makes the point.

How would abolishing the state’s involvement in marriage solve anything?

The reason that I believe this is the best way to resolve the ‘gay marriage’ debate is that it takes marriage out of the hands of the state and into the hands of the people – which will satisfy everyone involved. Here’s how:

Religious and traditional people personally do not recognize same-sex marriages and so naturally they’d be opposed to the state changing the definition of marriage. The underlying problem that defenders of traditional marriage have is with what definition they personally feel is right & moral being changed – this problem would disappear under privatized marriage. The Catholic Church defines its own doctrines, and the Democratic Party defines its values, and the state can’t dictate either values or doctrine to either of these organizations – why – because the state is not involved.

Under privatized marriage free men will define their own rituals and institutions according to their religious or personal beliefs, and would not have to bow down to some government that attempts to regulate their life.

Gay marriage supporters could get married or have whatever ritual they see fit and could get a secular civil union without any question. Of course the traditional marriage people may still not recognize their marriage as legitimate, and may even deny them access to their church for ceremonies – so what? That’s a product of a free society.

I do not recognize the Christian church as legitimate in the sense that its existence stands for truth since I believe Christianity is false. Mormons do not consider satanic rituals as legitimate, and many atheists do not see the Jewish tradition of chopping up a young boy’s penis up as legitimate. It’s a better world where people are free to decide on what they recognize as legitimate and not to have the state try to define things it has no business defining.

In short the problem isn’t with whether to define marriage this way or another, the problem is accepting that something as meaningful can even be up for a vote at all. Thomas Paine was quoted saying “That government is best which governs least” and I tend to agree with him.

Obama breaks promise & reveals inconvenient truth

Thu, 21 May 2009 22:57:27 PDT

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” – Obama (video link http://tinyurl.com/cuxwr9 )

“The largest cigarette tax in history will take effect Wednesday, April 1, 2009, and many penny pinching smokers are considering kicking the habit. President Obama signed legislation earlier this month that raises the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents a pack.” - http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10105485

Oops.

Is anyone surprised though? An interesting fact about the tax hike is that most smokers are low income.

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only one in five Americans smokes, so the excise targets a minority -- and over half of all smokers are low income, and one of four are officially classified as poor.” – Wall street journal

This is not even counting all the other ways the poor will be hurt under Obama offsetting his pathetic “tax credits” that amount to $10 a week for an individual (two happy meals at McDonalds!), such as printing money (inflation tax), or cap and trade. Setting this aside, one of the said benefits of the tax hike is that it will give high incentive or just force people to quit. Here are few quotes:

“This legislation also wisely increases taxes on other tobacco products to encourage smokers to quit tobacco use and not simply switch to other less expensive products.” – Medical News Today

“If the past is any guide, the sizable tax boost should have an immediate impact in getting many smokers to quit, and anti-smoking advocates were making the most of the moment yesterday.” – Washington Post

One of the “benefits” of a tax hike on cigarettes is that it will reduce smoking. Remember that voodoo concept supply and demand? When price goes up, demand goes down, right? If the price of cigarettes goes up, demand for them goes down.

The interesting thing about admitting this is the implications. If politically liberal people are happy to admit one of the effects of taxing something is we’ll see less of it, to remain consistent they must admit that this applies to all the things they want to tax. Statists want to tax productivity, investment, employers, trade, and work. So to say “We should raise capital gains made on investment and savings” is equal to saying “We should reduce capital gains made on investment and savings.” Simply change the words.

“This legislation also wisely increases taxes on employers to encourage employers to quit providing employment” – Medical News Today (parody)

“If the past is any guide, the sizable tax boost should have an immediate impact in getting many investors to quit investing, and anti-investment advocates were making the most of the moment yesterday.” – Washington Post (parody)

For those of us who are consistent in advocating free market principles, it’s not hard to come out of the closet and admit you accept controversial ideas like supply & demand. In the same way that ‘if price goes up, demand goes down’ applies to cigarettes, the same reasoning explains why minimum wage increases (and minimum wage in general) hurts the poor. When you use state force, backed by prison and death threats, to raise the price of labor by artificially setting price controls, you’d expect less ‘labor.’

“If the past is any guide, the sizable minimum wage boost should have an immediate impact in getting many employers to quit hiring, and anti-job advocates were making the most of the moment yesterday.” – Washington Post (parody)

Can you imagine how upset people would be in liberals advocated tax increases, or minimum wage hikes like this? Of course when do gooders advocate ideas like wage hikes this is exactly the consequences are. There’s no difference in the reasoning, just a difference in the rhetoric.

In short, by Obama legislating higher taxes for poor smokers, supporters of the tax have revealed an inconvenient truth – that an increase in price means we see less of it.

Obama thinks you're an idiot

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:36:40 PDT

Obama recently gave support for two bills that will regulate credit cards. In short, he wants to use the government to take away options from consumers by forcing credit card companies to limit interest rates and other forms of interest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042003558.html?wprss=rss_business

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-credit-card21-2009apr21,0,7360732.story

The banks are struggling, so they are charging higher interest rates and finding more creative ways to profit. Obama, in order to “protect” us, is using the government to make some of what they’re doing illegal.

Summers (Obama’s economic advisor) said Sunday that the president was focusing on such credit card abuses as those "having to do with the way people have been deceived into paying extraordinarily high interest rates that they wouldn't have paid if they knew what they were getting themselves into."

Completely ignoring the long argument I feel like giving on how this kind of totalitarian government intrusion into the private activity of business and consumers is unjust, and the argument on how it’s not the proper role of government to use the threat of death and prison to get companies to do what they think is “right” for me, all of this shows a disgusting double standard, a vapid understanding of basic economics, as well as a snobby tone.

1. Snobby Tone

With all do respect, President Obama – back off – I’m an adult, and I don’t need you to “protect” me from being “deceived.” Credit card companies, along with all other businesses already have the fascist-feeling breath of the government breathing down their neck. Credit card companies will only issue you a card if you agree to the terms of use. Do all people read the long agreement? Nope, but I do.

We’re not children, and if you want to continue to view us as children who need your protection, that’s fine – but stop lying about “believing in the American people.”

If your friend is running a race and you tell him “I believe in you,” but the next day you tell the other runners they can’t run too fast, and if your friend is too far behind they must stop and tie their shoe until your friend catches up – how would your friend feel? Doesn’t the idea of “believing” in someone mean you are confident in their ability to succeed?

The truth is, President Obama, you believe we’re idiots. The premise behind the policies of protectionism is that people can’t be trusted in making decisions about their own life. We’re too stupid to save money, so we need the government to force us to save (social security), we’re too stupid to get a credit card, so we need the government to force them to lower rates. The truth is you don’t believe in “the American people.”

2. Vapid Understanding of Economics

The idea that to “lower interest rates” all we need to do is make it a law that they are low is so childish and intellectually bankrupt I don’t even know where to begin. If the idea that the way to reduce the price of something is to just make it law worked, why not legislate that all homes be sold no higher than $250? Make it a crime to sell any amount of food for more then $5! The truth is, criminalizing a certain interest rate, or the price of a good comes at a cost. The only incentive banks and lenders have to lend is interest – why risk millions otherwise? So by reducing interest rates, we reduce incentive to loan, and reducing incentive to loan means less loaning. All of this translates into the idea that there will be less people out there who are willing to loan, and this translates into less jobs and less competition.

On top of having the effects I listed above, foolish protective measures hurt the poor the most. If you have poor credit, you will only be given a credit card at a high rate since you are a risk. A business is in essence saying “Look, you’re a pretty risky deal, so we’ll give you a shot but only if you offset your risk with a higher fee” – If you make it a crime to offset risky customers with high rates, why loan at all? I have personal experience with this. A friend of mine approached me asking for a loan, and only did so because he had no other option. He was too much of a risk to get any additional credit, and since businesses legally can’t charge the interest they’d need to charge to offset the risk, they just turn him down.

In short, when you reduce the profitability of something, you get less of it.

3. Disgusting Double Standard

Right now many states are having budget problems, and in a pathetic effort to fix the budget issue many states have raised or threatened to raise taxes. Here in California they’ve already hiked the sales tax, and are threatening to raise other taxes. So here we have the SAME people who are “struggling” and “suffering” from credit card companies raising rates being financially raped by the state.

Consider this for a moment. A credit card can only charge you a higher interest rate if you agree to the terms of service. If you’re upset at the changing rates, you’re free to cancel, or just go to another card holder. Raising rates on “suffering” people is so offensive to Obama that he runs around talking about “protecting” us from the rise in rates by using the power of the government. At the same time states are raising taxes – taxes that nobody has any choice on paying, and your refusal to pay means you’re fined, and if you resist, put in jail. So on one hand we have a company raising rates on its voluntary customers, and on the other we have police aiming guns at people as a means to ensure you pay the ‘higher fees’ (taxes.) The credit card companies are demonized, while the efforts by the states are seen as necessary and good. What’s the difference? Both are simply adjusting to a struggling economy.

What makes the double standard glow is Biden saying the “rich” being forced to pay higher taxes is “patriotic” and a way to help America “get out of the rut.”

In conclusion: President Obama, I’m not a child, please read “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell, and when are you going to save me from higher taxes?

Obama breaks promise & reveals inconvenient truth

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:44:44 PDT

State Intervention Opposition Fallacy

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:13:46 PST

In some recent political conversation’s I’ve had with friends and strangers, I’ve come across a fallacious argument that’s so common that it deserves a name. I’ve already done a little re-search if there’s a term for this fallacy but have failed to find anything. The argument in short, is that one’s opposition to a governmental policy is to be against the intentions of the policy or it’s founders. Here are a few examples of this fallacy.

Charles: I agree with Obama that we ought to double our foreign aid to poor nations.

David: Yes, I hear that’s something he intends on doing, I don’t agree with him on that though.

Charles: I don’t get it, why are you opposed to that? Are you against helping poor nations? Don’t you think poor people should have food?

or

Charles: You know, obesity is a big problem, which is why I’m happy they passed a “trans fat” ban here in California.

David: I’m not happy at all, I don’t feel comfortable with the government regulating whether or not I can eat fatty foods.
Charles: …but don’t you want people have a healthier diet? Do you approve of people getting overweight?

The reasoning that motivates the questions asked by Charles is that David’s opposition to a governmental policy is to be against the intentions of the policy or its founders. What’s wrong with this? The error is that what is in question is not the intentions but the methods. The question on whether or governmental policy is just and should be supported is not solely determined by the intentions of the policy, but other considerations. Will the policy achieve its objective? Are there superior forms of that policy that will achieve the objective more efficiently? Does the government have the legal or constitutional right to do what is in question? Does the policy strip rights away from others? These are just a few important considerations that should determine whether a policy should be supported or exist at all.

I’m going to call this fallacy the “State Intervention Opposition Fallacy,” since the reasoning behind it is always in response to someone’s opposition to the state’s intervention.

Let’s consider the case of foreign aid. It’s obvious that the intentions of foreign aid are in part to help poor nations, if so why oppose it? For starters you could argue that giving poor nations food does address why they are poor in the first place but instead gives temporary assistance. Second, it’s clear that it’s unconstitutional and illegal. Here are some quotes by our founders and other political leaders:

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Third, there’s data out there (I don’t have on hand) that suggest the amount of money given by American’s voluntarily is much higher than given by our government in the form of tax dollars, therefore rending idea of foreign aid unnecessary. These are all legitimate reasons to oppose foreign aid, and none of them require that you hate poor people.

Atheism & Meaning

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:53:31 PST

Atheism & Meaning

The following is a response to a small dinner table conversation that was made yesterday on the topic of meaning in the context of an atheistic worldview (godless worldview). I was asked whether, as an atheist, I find meaning in things, and whether I find there is a purpose to life.

First let's try to figure out what's being said, and what it means.

MEANING

The most basic form of meaning is the meaning of words. "Cat" refers to a specific animal, with specific features (mammal, furry etc). The word "Cat" itself would be meaningless if it did not refer to something outside of itself. One can't imagine a set of symbols simply meaning something intrinsically. Lopletrox is a meaningless for the very reason that those symbols do not refer to any object or state of affairs, however, the moment a object/state of affairs is designated for the word Lepletrox the word has a meaning.

So it appears that meaning in the context of language is relational to objects/states of affairs. The meaning of words is therefore extrinsic (not essential or inherent; not a basic part or quality), and not intrinsic (belonging to a thing by its very nature)

The meaning of words therefore can be summarized as: Word X has meaning IF X refers to Y

What about the meaning of objects or persons? Think about something that has meaning, or means something to you, and try and pin down what about that thing or person is different that it is meaningful?

I have a small teddy bear I named Taker (for when I was younger, I took him everywhere). It's the same bear that was given to me when I was born. This small teddy bear has a great deal of meaning to me. When I put taker next to another teddy bear that does not have meaning it becomes clear why Taker has meaning while the other does not. Taker has been with me my entire life and is probably one of the first objects I've ever touched. Taker has meaning because it's associated with certain valued memories or certain rare moments. So again, it appears that the meaning of taker is relational and extrinsic. However, not like words, taker refers to certain mental/subjective states. Taker's meaning exists under the conditions that he refers to certain valued or rare events/memories.

So the meaning of objects & persons can be summarized as: X has meaning IF X refers to certain valued mental-states in person P

The commonality of these types of meaning are that they are A) Relational (quality only exists in relation to something else) B) Extrinsic (not inherent) C) Subjective (requires a mind to exist to make the reference of words, requires a mind to be referred to in objects/persons)

Now, when I was asked about meaning I tried my best to summerise this. Mike E. after I was done, said 'basically, there is no meaning' to which I replied that there was, he replied 'it's not objective meaning'

OBJECTIVE MEANING?

What about objective meaning? What does this mean? Let's first make the distinction between objective and subjective.

Subjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject
2. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience

Objective
1. existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

"The earth is round" is objective since it's truth is independent of thought or minds. The existence of agents is not a condition that is required for such a statement to be true. "The sun is warm" is subjective in the sense that 'warmth' is a feeling. Sensations exist in minds. The statement 'the sun is warm' can only be true if there exists agents/minds. Now, there is another sharp distinction that needs to be made before everyone gets confused. A subjective statement can be objectively true and still remain subjective. "I am warm" refers to a subjective state of the mind, but it's truth is objective since my my feeling of warmth remains to be true regardless of other minds. You can objectively measure my subjective feeling. Now, with the sun, we may label 100 degrees as 'hot' and therefore the sun was hot before the existence of life. But that's simply a label referring to an objective state of affairs, namely the measurable temperature. The subjective experience of such objective states of affairs, such as warmth is still subjective although its of objective states of affairs! Sorry, just read that twice and you'll understand.

So can something have 'objective meaning?' - After thinking about whats required for something to have meaning the answer it clearly no. If [X has meaning IF X refers to certain valued mental-states in person P] is true, then objective meaning becomes an oxymoron. Things have meaning in relation to subjects, so how can you have a subjective-objective thing? It would be like saying "It's my objective thought" - If objective means 'existing independent of thought' how can you have a thought that is independent of thought? I'll give you $500 if you have an objective thought.

So if all that has been said is true, then Mike is right, under atheism there is no objective meaning - but that's only true because objective meaning is an oxymoron.

PURPOSE?

For something to have a purpose, by definition, it must be something that is designed/formed/created with an intention/goal in mind. A fork has a purpose only by virtue that it was designed with the intention of a certain use. Intentionality is the key to purpose. So of course in an atheistic universe, the universe and man has no purpose since it was not designed with any intentionality. Forks, houses, TVs, job classes still have purpose, since they are motivated by intention. So to say "if atheism is true there is no purpose" is simply false.

Some may say, and Mike E. will or has "Yeah, but it's not ultimate purpose." If what is meant by this is, ultimately the entire cosmos has no purpose. Of course, but that's true with god as well. Was god created/designed with a goal in mind? No, by definition god just exists eternally. So the same argument could made against theism "Since god has no purpose, there's no ultimate purpose in a theistic universe"

Again, one may respond with "(1) God gives himself purpose!" or "(2) He has intrinsic purpose!" - First if (1) is true, then the claim "there's no purpose in an atheist universe" becomes false, because man could then assign purpose to himself or the cosmos. Second, (2) is just nonsense. 'intrinsic purpose' is a compete oxymoron. For something to be intrinsic, it must be inherent or 'by its very nature' - How can something be "designed with an intention" by its very nature? Purpose by definition is a quality that is only possible in relation to a mind. If it's a properties is intrinsic, it's not in relation to anything. So the whole idea of 'intrinsic purpose' is contradictory.

Conclusion: In an atheistic worldview there can be meaning, it's not objective since that's impossible and contradictory. There is no purpose to life or the cosmos, but that's true of a god himself.

- By: David Campbell

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Stupid things people say during debate.

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:54:32 PST

Stupid things people say during debate.

Close to four years ago, I bought a digital voice recorder that I used to record interesting discussions I had with people about controversial topics. I recently took a look at the number of hours I had recorded back then, and it’s a little over 35 hours of recordings. I have since stopped recording conversations and can only speculate how many hours it would be if I had a voice recorder my entire life. As I listened through old conversations, I notice themes on what people say and how they respond to different things.

On occasion I’ll get into conversations with people who I personally categories as “non-philosophers” or “misologists.” Of course this is a harsh thing to be called, but let me explain what I mean when I say this and how I personally identify them.

By “non-philosopher” I don’t mean someone who is not a professor or student of philosophy, but rather someone who, by his own statements, reveals his ignorance of logical fallacies or errors in reasoning. By ‘ignorance of logical fallacies’ I don’t mean ignorance of what “ad hominem” is or what a “compositional fallacy” is, but rather does not see them as fallacies. You don’t actually have to know what term is used to identify a fallacy to know it’s a fallacy.

By “misologists” I mean someone who, by his own statements, reveals a hatred of reasoning altogether. Of course this may not be conscious, but known by what they say.

Obviously all of this might be seen as very condescending of me, but frankly I don’t care about that very much.

Here are small lists of 4 highly obnoxious themes found in too many discussions/debates I’ve had over the years. Anyone who says, or argues, one of these I personally consider a misologists or a non-philosopher.

1. “That’s never going to happen”

Often in discussions of politics or philosophy the objection is that a hypothetical situation or thought experiment is not valid or worth considering because it “will never happen.” This objection usually will come up when a thought experiment involves wildly bizarre or unlikely circumstances. Here’s a small fictional account of what this looks like.

John: David, you see I believe in a kind of democracy where the will of the people rule, and if the will of the people is served that is just.
David: All right, but don’t you feel that some things are not up to a vote?

John: What do you mean?

David: Well, are you saying that if the great majority of the people voted to kill you, that would be just?

John: That’s ridiculous! That’s never going to happen.

David: Fine, but if you’re position is that it’s just for the will of the people to be served, and the people will your death, wouldn’t that be just under your view?

John: David, that’s just never going to happen.

This objection can only be made by someone who simply does not understand what a thought experiment is and what purpose it fulfills. A thought experiment is a proposal for an experiment that would test a hypothesis or theory but cannot actually be performed due to practical limitations; instead its purpose is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question. In the case of John’s position on democracy and justice, his principle was that it is just if it is the will of the people. If his principle is true and going to be held consistently then the consequence of that would be that it can be just to kill an innocent man. The fact that the circumstances in the hypothetical are bizarre or unlikely is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the principle is true.

One thing to point out is that the essence of all thinking involves considering hypothetical situations - most of which will never occur. Consider for a moment what it actually means to think about something. For example, thinking about whether to go camping in the woods or to the beach. When think about each option, you imagine the circumstances (i.e. the weather and things you may do). In essence you’re playing with hypothetical situations in your mind. So it seems that to reject the use of a thought experiment on the grounds that it’s “hypothetical” or “never going to happen” is really to reject the idea of thinking altogether, and to reject the idea of thinking altogether amounts to a hatred of reason and philosophy.

2. “Debating this topic is pointless since nobody will change their mind”

Often you’ll find that some people will avoid discussing topics of importance or controversy on the grounds that debating it is pointless or not constructive since it’s unlikely that either side will change their mind after the discussion. This defense can be found in many forms:

Why debate? It’s not like you’re going to convince him of anything he doesn’t believe
I have my beliefs, you have yours, and we’re not going to convince each

other of anything, so why bother?

I first want to point out that this presupposes that the purpose of debate is to convince your opponent that he is wrong. This is not at all obvious, and you could argue that the purpose or one of the purposes of debate is to test your ideas against others, or to convince an audience member. The truth is that the purpose of debating probably relies on the intention of the debaters, and is not some kind of defined thing.

Second, this seems to suggest that if a debate does not result in someone being convinced then it was not worth having. The notion that a debate is not worth having, or has little to no value if others are not convinced is just false. One can debate for enjoyment, to test his ideas against others, for the audience, or simply because he feels it’s important. This objection could be used to argue why the presidential debates are pointless and are not worth having since both parties usually have strong convictions about what is best for the nation.

Third, whether or not someone is convinced immediately after the debate does not mean they will not eventually be convinced. I personally have had many beliefs and ideas of mine changed as the result of debates I had months before, and I probably would have never changed my position on those things if I had not engaged in debate with others. The truth is that false ideas are best exposed by testing them against other ideas in debate. As David Hume said, “Truth springs from argument among friends.”

3. “That’s just your opinion”

Another common reason people give to justify why it’s not worth their time to discuss important or controversial topics is to brush off the discussion as simply “your opinion against mine.” The idea is that debating whether or not there ought to be a minimum wage or whether god exists is like debating which ice cream is best; it at the end of the day is just a “matter of opinion.”

Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

There are three things to say about this. First, pointing out that someone’s belief is a matter of opinion is uttering something meaningless since the definition of opinion is almost synonymous with ‘belief.’ It’s like dismissing someone’s argument on the grounds that “It’s just a bunch of words put together.”

Second, what is relevant in debating an issue is not whether or not something is an opinion but the level of evidence or justification for that opinion. Opinions are not all created equal, some may be supported by better reasons.

Third, there are many things that are considered knowledge today that were once opinion: the shape of the earth, the cause of lightning, and what causes illness are a few examples. The shape of the earth, and its position in the universe was at one time a theological issue debated amongst religious people. You could have easily dismissed debating the position of the earth’s place in the universe as a “matter of opinion” or “your religious beliefs against mine.” The fact that something happens to be an opinion currently has no relevance on whether it may be knowledge in the future, and it’s through debating different positions that we can come to understand something is knowledge. So ultimately refusing to take part in a discussion of ‘opinions’ is refusing in discussing the truth, and refusing to discuss the truth amounts to a rejection of philosophy altogether.

4. “Pressing your beliefs on others”

Some object to debating topics of importance or controversy on the grounds that it’s somehow rude or immoral to “press your beliefs on others.” The idea is that provided an argument on why something is true amounts to trying to “convert someone” or “cram your beliefs down their throat” and those are both bad things to do.

First, a belief is either true or false. This is a rather simple premise, and is hard to find anyone who disagrees. A belief or set of beliefs can be reduced to statements about the world. When one says "I believe the basket ball is in the closet" one is claiming to belief the statement "the basket ball is in the closet" is true. The statement is true if it corresponds to reality, which is to say, such a statement about the world is true if it ‘maps on’ to the real world.

There are some though, and they are not hard to find, who will object saying "Those beliefs are true to them" or "We're all right in our own way" and often resort to the Elephant in the room story. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to try and discover what it is. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective. Each blind man says "It's a rope!" or "It's a wall!" the story ends as follows:

"They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the thing we're touching is." Each one of them told what he thought it was. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

If you find yourself in a conversation on religion with a liberal minded person, you will hear this story many times. It's the "We're all right in our own way" kind of mentality that is more of a preschool "We're all winners!" type of thinking. One blatant flaw in the story is, although each one felt a different part of the same "truth" - they were all wrong! It was NOT a rope, a wall, a tree, it was an Elephant! Each man made false statements about the world, namely that the object they were touching was something other than an Elephant.

2. Holding true beliefs is better than holding false ones.

(one is better off holding true beliefs)

Beliefs translate into actions, and actions effect people. If those beliefs are false, you're almost certainly wasting a lot of time. Consider the belief that the gods require a child sacrifice in exchange for rain this month. If such a belief is true, then it may be justified, if however that belief is false, you're simply killing an innocent child. What people believe matters; it matters only because of the potentially wasteful or harmful implications of those beliefs being false.

3. Helping people in ways that is better for them is good.

If people are better off holding true beliefs, and helping people in ways that is better for them is good, then it follows that helping people hold true beliefs is good. Of course, helping people hold true beliefs can only be done by providing good reasons and argument, which is precisely what 'converting someone' ultimately is. If you agree with premise 1, 2, and 3 you simply can not condemn or criticize someone for making attempts to 'convert the lost.'

Another thing to point out about this defense is not only immoral and cold hearted, but self-refuting. To better understand how this is the case, we must turn to the actual definition for 'convert.'

convert. (v)

1) To change (something) into a different form or properties.

2) To persuade or induce to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief.

The second definition given is more appropriate given the context. To convert someone is to persuade them into believing whatever proposition is being presented.

persuade. (v)

1) To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty.

To be more specific, to 'convert' someone is to persuade them by means of argument and reason. So if you grant the definition of convert, or persuade, any instance where someone attempts to convince someone of a proposition by means of reason or argument is by definition attempting to convert that person. Therefore the very act of telling someone they are rude for attempting to convert others, if followed by reasons like "I think you should not do this for reason X" is by definition an act of persuasion which is what converting someone is! So to convince one that converting others is rude is in itself a form of conversion! The entire complaint is self-refuting.

Do not vote for Barack Obama.

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:37:04 PST

The size of government

Prop 8? Atheism? Taxes? Viruses?

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:21:38 PDT

I do plan on posting more blog entries defending my ideas and opposing those ideas such I find false. [edit.]

[edit.]

I also love discussing politics, philosophy, economics, and religion so if any of you just want to have a discussion/debate about something in that category you’re free to call me anytime as well. I’m absolutely open to anyone who just wants to have a little debate.

Here is a small list of things I believe and enjoy defending.

Racial/Gender discrimination laws are unneeded and immoral
Price Gouging should be legal and results in good.
Free Market capitalism is just and results in the greatest good for the greatest number
Minimum wage laws do no good and hurt poor people.
Torture can be just.
All taxation should be abolished and replaced with a consumption tax (FairTax [HR25])
Outsourcing jobs and importing goods & services makes us richer, and attempting to stop it is fascist and inconsistent with a free society.
Eminent domain is wrong.
Not everyone should vote.
Barack Obama does not “believe” in the American people
Barack Obama will not & cannot cut taxes for 95% of the population.
The Bible is false
There most probably is not a god
There is no good reason to believe a god exists
Objective value is an oxymoron.
There is no purpose to life
We do have freewill even though determinism is true.
Christianity is anti-American
It’s good to press your beliefs on others
Metaphysical Naturalism is true.
Answering the question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is easy.
There most probably is no soul
There most probably is no afterlife
I believe everything I believe is true, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

This is a short list of a few views I personally hold to. I of course only listed those which I think most people will disagree with. If you’re interested in debating me on any of these issues give me a call. [edit.]

"Forcing" your beliefs on others?

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:57:08 PDT

One complaint we often hear about the conservative religious groups is about them trying to "convert" everyone. From door to door Mormons selling spirituality to evangelicals who practice aggressive apologetics (such as Ray Comfort) are often characterized as "cramming their beliefs down people's throats" or "pressing their beliefs on others." I myself have even been criticized by fellow atheists for admitting to 'trying to convert' friends and others. He said he found it "disgusting." We hear "Other people's beliefs are not your business!" or "I have my beliefs, you have yours, don't 'press' your beliefs on me" What do we make of this?

Is it really rude to attempt to convert someone into believing as you do? What does it mean to 'press' your beliefs on someone? I would argue this kind of thinking can be (1) self-refuting, and on closer examination could even be considered (2) cold hearted and immoral. The argument consists of (3) premises.

1. A belief is either true or false.

This is a rather simple premise, and is hard to find anyone who disagrees. A belief or set of beliefs can be reduced to statements about the world. When one says "I believe the basket ball is in the closet" one is claiming to belief the statement "the basket ball is in the closet" is true. The statement is true if it corresponds to reality, which is to say, such a statement about the world is true if it maps on to the world.

"They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the thin we're touching is ." Each one of them told what he thought it was. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

If you find yourself in a conversation on religion with a liberal minded person, you will hear this story many times. It's the "We're all right in our own way" kind of mentality that is more of a preschool "We're all winners!" type of thinking. One blatant flaw in the story is, although each one felt a different part of the same "truth" - they were all wrong! It was NOT a rope, a wall, a tree, it was an Elephant! Each man made FALSE statements about the world, namely that the object they were touching was something other than an Elephant.

2. Holding true beliefs is better than holding false ones.
(one is better off holding true beliefs)

Beliefs translate into actions, and actions effect people. If those beliefs are false, you're almost certainly wasting a lot of time. Consider the belief that the gods require a child sacrifice in exchange for rain this month. If such a belief is true, then it may be justified, if however that belief is false, you're simply killing an innocent child. What people believe matters, it matters only because of the potentially wasteful or harmful implications of of those beliefs being false.

3. Helping people in ways that is better for them is good.

Earlier I also claimed this kind of reasoning, namely the arguments that 'converting' people is rude, is not only immoral and cold hearted, but self refuting. To better understand how this is the case, we must turn to the actual definition for 'convert.'

convert. (v) - The American Heritage® Dictionary
1) To change (something) into a different form or properties.
2) To persuade or induce to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief.

The second definition given is more appropriate given the context. To convert someone is to persuade them into believing whatever proposition is being presented.

persuade. (v)
1) To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty.

To be more specific, to 'convert' someone is to persuade them by means of argument and reason. So if you grant the definition of convert, or persuade, any instance where someone attempts to convince someone of a proposition by means of reason or argument is by definition attempting to convert that person. Therefore the very act of telling someone they are rude for attempting to convert others, if followed by reasons like "I think you should not do this for reason X" is by definition an act of persuasion which is what converting someone is! So to convince one that converting others is rude is in itself a form of conversion!

The entire complaint is self-refuting.

This kind of response may be so popular, and I apologize if I sound harsh, is because the majority of the population hate philosophy, hate thinking, and hate truth. People are obsessed with what 'feels good to me' rather than what is true. People are obsessed in preserving diversity of opinions by condoning those who try to unite. Beliefs about the nature of reality have become more like what flavor ice cream you like where it makes little sense to evaluate flavor preference as 'true' or 'false'; 'I like chocolate, it's good for me, don't try and change me' - the reality is of course that beliefs about the cosmos are not like this, you are either right about them or you're not - and truth should become what we strive for.

Smearing Joe the Plumber

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:39:39 PDT

Recently Joe Wurzelbacher has received a lot of attention in the media. In this short entry I want to respond to one of the silly made about Joe to discredit him.

“He’s not a plumber, he does not have his plumbing license”

First, a plumber is a person installs and repairs pipes and plumbing. If you install and repair pipes and plumbing you’re a plumber. If Joe does that, he’s a plumber, period.

Second, a plumbing license is a way of demonstrating you’re a plumber. You don’t magically acquire the skills do be a plumber after you get the licenses. Were all the plumbers before government issued licensed not plumbers?

Third, there should not be a ‘plumbing license.’ The idea that you need government approval to fix your friends sink is disgusting, fascist, totalitarian and anti-American. Either you believe in liberty or you don’t.

Forth, even if he’s not a plumber using that fact to somehow discredit his argument is fallacious. Even if he doesn’t even know what a plumber is, his point is still valid and anytime you hear anyone try and use the ‘he’s not a plumber because he does not have a license’ as an attempt to discredit his argument you know instantly that person is an intellectual lightweight.

Economic Facts & Fallacies

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:59:47 PDT

1. PROVING THE CLAIM
TAXES REDUCE INCENTIVES

1.    The primary incentive to do X is money.
2.    If the amount of money increases then the incentive increases.
3.    If the amount of money is decreased then the incentive decreases.
4.    Therefore the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive.

Example in practice

Imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn. Imagine I offer you $200 the next day to mow my lawn. Would your incentive to mow my lawn increase? Would you be willing to sacrifice more perhaps? (Not go to the movies for example). Imagine I offer you $20. Would your incentive to mow my lawn decrease?

This seems like a trivial and almost obvious point. The answer to all those questions is yes. In a way it's simply describing supply and demand. Of course if all things obviously true were believed, I would not need to write such things as this.

If you accept the premises above and answered yes to the questions in the thought experiment, then it's fair to say that we've established the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive to do X.

Tax - A charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government.

A tax basically is forced 'fee' or 'charge' on something. If I were to pay a 50% tax on $100, I would be left with $50. Taxation therefore reduces the value of whatever is being taxed.

Example in practice

Imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn. Now imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn, and the government recently imposed a tax on mowing lawns, the tax is set to 50%. I offer you $100, but you only receive $50. Would you incentive to mow my lawn change?

Again, all of this is quite obvious. The answer is yes. Economically, there's no difference to you whether or not he offers you $100 or $200, what you will actually receive matters. By the same reasoning, economically it makes no difference to the man how much you get, what he actually pays matters.

If you accept the premises above and answered yes to the questions in the thought experiment, then it's fair to say that we've established if the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive to do X, and if taxation results in the amount of money being offered always being lower, then it's reasonable to conclude that

taxes always reduce the incentive to do X

In summery

5.    The primary incentive to do X is money.
6.    If the amount of money increases then the incentive increases.
7.    If the amount of money is decreased then the incentive decreases.
8.    A tax always reduces the amount of money offered to do X
9.    Therefore taxes always reduce the incentive to do X

The implication of this simple principle is that when someone offers to tax a good or service, he is by consequence reducing people's incentive to do that service or consume that good.

When all of this is realized, it becomes very interesting to consider how our tax system is levied. Here are some commonly held ideas

1.    Tax the "rich"
2.    Tax businesses that employ people.
3.    Tax large oil companies with windfall profits tax (95% tax after a set amount)
4.    Tax capital gains (investment)
5.    Tax death

What's even more bizzar is many are in favor of having very high taxes on corporations, and very wealthy people and families. Barack Obama for example is in favor of taxes as high as 39% on individuals making $200k or more, and a family making $250k or more. Now I think it's reasonable to say that in general those who are earning such a high amount are the most productive in the sense that their services or labor is in such high demand. It's also reasonable to assume that in general those who earn such a high amount are the most responsible for employing people. Given those facts it seems odd to reduce people's incentive to remaining productive in the same ways.

Consider Obama's desire to raise the capital gains tax. Obama's was asked about this during a democratic presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Obama has since considered lowering that figure to 20%, probably due all of the heat he's received from it. In either case, when we consider the principles being discussed this idea seems counter productive. From what I understand, capital gains are gains earned from when a stock is sold. The result of the tax will be a decrease in the incentive to invest, or at the very least invest in risky stocks (stocks of those who are probably just starting out).

2. REFUTING THE CLAIM "CHEAP LABOR HURTS THE US"
Technology Analogy

Imagine there's a manufacturer of toothpaste who currently has 100 people working for him manually putting together the paste & tubes they go into. His current rate of production is say 5,000 tubes of toothpaste a day, his production costs per tube is $10, and he sells them for $15.

Thousands of people every month buy his toothpaste.

Now imagine this man meets an engineer and they discuss business. The engineer talks about inventing a machine that may assist him in his toothpaste business.

Time goes by and the machine is finished. This manufacturer can now produce 50,000 tubes a day at the cost of $1 per tube. Not only does this equate to 10x the amount of production at 1/10th the cost, but the machine can easily be maintained with 10 people.

The manufacturer lays off all 90 of the least productive or needed employees and begins training the remaining 10 how to use the machine and then doubles their pay.

He now can not only provide 10x the amount of toothpaste but now sells it at $2, saving it's customers on average $300 a year.

Is this a good or bad thing? This in summary is the essence of technology. Technology allows human beings to do more things at lower costs. This is undoubtedly a good thing, and could even be said to be the best thing that could ever happen to humanity since it allows us to produce more of what we want and need with less work.

Now let's say this machine was in a different state from the manufacturer. Is this bad? Let's say the machine was in another country. Is it any less good? Now let's say it's not a machine but 1000 workers. Is it now bad?

To those who would say that free trade harms the US or the other country economically is now in a very absurd position, since economically speaking there's no difference between a machine & a person, if the costs and production speed are the same, and there's obviously no logical reason why the distance between the machine and the manufacturer would make this any less good, yet this is exactly what free trade opponents are saying.

It is undoubtedly true that 90 people lost their jobs. Many people who were in the horse & buggy industry lost their jobs when the automobile became less expensive and more people exploited its benefits. Many in the type writer industry lost their jobs with the advent of the personal computer. Yet, all of these changes are good things that have increased the standard of living for everyone.

3. REFUTING THE CLAIM
"NON-MONETARY TRADE DOES NOT INVOLVE PROFIT"

Non-monetary profit

When defending economic freedom, or as some call capitalism, I'm often confronted with the notion that non-monetary trades are not "for profit" but are done because the trade is "fair" or "more fair" then a trade or transaction done for profit.

For example, in discussion with a member of the Socialist Labor Party‎ a part of the conversation on profit, trade, and labor went something like this.

Socialist: The capitalist employer steals the 'true' value of a workers labor by profit. A worker's labor may produce 10 chairs a day but his wage can only buy him 4 chairs. Therefore the workers true labor is 'really' 10 chairs. The capitalist is therefore stealing his real labor for profit.

Me: Of course, if the employer paid the man more or equal to the amount of output there'd be no incentive to hire him. If a worker makes a business $1,000 richer by increasing production, you're not going to pay him $1,500. (I then blabbed about supply & demand etc)

All right, what about if I trade you 2 chairs for your table, and there is no money involved, is that wrong?

Socialist: No. There is no profit involved.

This idea is brought up in many different forms. The idea that a trade, if done with goods or services alone is not for "profit"

The concept of profit of course is the idea that you gain more than you invested, or the idea that you receive/benefit more than you put in. In monetary terms this is when you buy a good at $1 and sell it for $1.50, making a 50cent profit. Of course, we also speak of profit in terms of gaining in any sense. You could say that many profit from education, since what they get from an education is valued far greater than what was lost receiving it – time & energy.

Let's take the case of the man who trades two chairs for one table. This is claimed to be a 'fair' trade not for profit. Why would anyone trade two chairs for a table? The man obviously values the table more than his chairs, and the man must also value the chairs more than his table. Here we have a situation where the objects have a value relative to each man. In each case the value of the good desired is higher than the good being traded for.

Value is not an objective property but rather something that depends on the existence of minds to desire things. Oil has much more value than dog poop, and the reason has nothing to do with the essence of oil but the fact that it has a much higher demand for it – compared to dog poop. Imagine if tomorrow they discover that dog poop can be converted into something your car can run on – the value of dog poop would change. Its change is directly linked to its demand, which is the word used to described how much something is desired. So any notions of "real" value or "objective" value are false and based on a false concept of value. The term "real" value or "objective" value – in the sense that things have value independent minds/desires – is used time and time again in the discussions of economics, often by those trying to argue that profit or capitalism only works if people are suckered into buying something for more than its "real value." Those who argue this simply are clinging to false and emotionally driven intuitions about the concept of value, and simply have not thought it through.

When this trade occurs, the result is that both men are now in possession of something that was deemed more valuable to them. Both men gained more than they lost – they profited. In the same way that someone makes a monetary profit by receiving more money than they put out.